There are somethings, which I didn't get into in this video. My measurements indicate they're closer to a 2308 than a 2207. But Chris already told us they're not 2207 but "2207 Class". Chris states they are quantifiably better performing in terms of thrust, torque and efficiency than the average of the 2207 motors he's tested. But 2308 is a bigger stator and produces more power than a 2207. Therefore, of course they will be higher performing, that's how engineering works. Before I get into this, you may think, well isn't Chris one of the "Good Guys". Chris was contributor in the community who was recovering some of the cost by his frame and some products. We could all get behind and support that. However, Chris has/is moved/moving away from "I'm just helping out the community and being reimbursed for the efforts" to a full on commercial business in FPV. So he's due the same scrutiny that we'd give any other company. Here are the several issues with these motors: 1. Science & engineering is supposed to be able to discern truth and define fact. Having a motors that are closer to 2308, but calling them "2207" and using the term "2207 class" is disingenuous. 2. Chris has built his authority in FPV based upon applying an engineering approach to define truth and fact from his testing. This profile was based upon a companies sending him their motors to test for marketing purposes (and yes he's bought some himself). To then use the motors provided by companies to create a competing product doesn't exactly exemplify integrity. If the companies who produced the motors were also in the UK or even in the USA, it sounds like Chris would have a lawsuit on his hands. 3. Chris states his motors perform quantifiably better than the average 2207 motor. I don't have any issues with taking the average as a benchmark for marketing reasons, that's acceptable. But, with the stators being closer to a 2308, Chris calling them a 2207, then comparing them to 2207 motors doesn't show whether they genuinely perform better because of the engineering he's put into them, or if it's simply because you have more stator volume on a 2308 than a 2207. 4. Why didn't he just call them 2308's and use his platform and science to say that the best motor size for 5" Freestyle is a 2308? I actually wish he did, even if they are a few points of a mm smaller than 2308, representing them in their true size would have been better. But calling them 2308's and saying this is why its the right size, opens him up to competition. You can't charge $29 for a motor that's performance is derived from its stator size and its marginal improvements over the competition are because of its engineering. Everyone would make 2308's and Chris's competitive advantage is suddenly gone. As I said in my video my measurements shouldn't be taken as 100% accurate, but if you give the manufacturer the courtesy of not having to be accurate, and allowing them to be misleading in their product - well, same applies here.
Tldr: science guy said science so best! Aka: let’s take the bison > wasp > fpvcycle stator iterations, swap the flux ring to magnet ratio, dip it in blue paint and raise the price by 20%, call it best coz science and send it 💸💸💸💩🥪
@@ciaofpv5520 My biggest issue, is saying that he is the “best” source of science, and the rest of us, the actual professionals, don’t know what we are doing… we have people that now specialize in FPV motors, for years, that also have worked/work on the most incredible hypercar and off-world electric motors. With modelling, simulation and testing technology that is never going to be available to the public. AND, most importantly, a large team of professional FPV pilots that drive the development more than the aforementioned technologies. We are building these for people to have fun after all. I’m all for an underdog story… but the poor data set and derived simulations are more marketing than science, unfortunately.
They are 22.5 x 07.5 it seems. So 10% more volume but the same weight (approximate) as 2207 I guess. Bell is light. So less durable (?) and becomes a finite analysis on strength comparison. That would need to be done.
I don't understand your point... All he has said is: By using engineering, better quality materials, and better design, I have produced a new motor. By using "the scientific method," I've obtained data that shows that this motor is indeed superior to the batch i tested. This is the data i gathered, read it and draw your own conclusion. Why would someone be biased by reading and observing a scientific proven experiment? That's not how bias works. Otherwise, we would all be biased in believing that air contains oxygen... Biased is having a prejudice which could be induce for exhample by common beliefs, hear say or opinions.. The whole point of science and to use the scientific method is to eliminate bias from the equation and let the data speak. You are right, a better motor won't makeyou a better pilot as me driving an f1 car won't make me winning a grand Prix. Better equipment will directly affect personal performances if used appropriately to one own skill level.
There are several cognitive bias which prejudice us - and bias and prejudice isn’t about another person. Confirmation Bias: People tend to favor information that confirms their beliefs - you have “data” that says they’re better therefore you think you feel their better performance when you don’t. Authority Bias: People tend to believe or obey authority figures without questioning them. - because there is “scientific data” to prove they are better performing against a non-comparable example, it gives these motors the authority they are actually better, when a premium T-Motor that’s 2308 1980kv would perform similarly on the bench and in the real world experience. Hall Effect. You place importance on the scientific data as opposed to how they actually perform in the real world against a realistically comparable example - therefore you think they’re always better.
But the problem is, Chris is calling them a 2207 and saying this data proves they perform better than other 2207’s But they’re not 2207’s the stator size is 2308, which is 20% larger in volume than a 2207 - so of course the data will prove they perform better, they’re a bigger motor. Say they’re a 2308, but they’re the same weight as a 2207 so you get all the benefit of the additional stator volume of a 2308 without the weight penalty It’s not that hard.
@@DarrenAllatt To be fair Chris has stated publicly that he calls them 2207 as to not alienate pilots that are accustomed to seeing that size. It is just the size his motors are similar to. For myself I can't imagine putting $30 in a motor and would rather put the money somewhere else in the quad. Equipment is really good all around these days, including motors. Besides, motors are a consumable much like batteries.
One sure way to test is to see what hover times/flight times you get of those vs other best in class motors. You should be get more minutes of flight time with these as they are more efficient. In terms of feeling they probably won't feel much different than other motors with similar measurements and KV.
Thank you for wasting 7.5 minutes of my time, without telling us ANYTHING about your findings from TRYING these motors. But, good job sharing with us your biases, your wonderful drone build tutorials, and your deep technical knowledge. If more KV equals more power, and larger stator size (impressed by your skill of calculating the complex shape volume using only 2 measurements by out-of-battery electronic caliper, BTW!) means better performance, I'm sure we'd all be thrilled with your design of a 99x9mm 9999kv 5-inch motor (correctly named, of course). Dont forget the "solid stator", please. While waiting for that engineering masterpiece, i'll ask TH-cam to never suggest your videos again, cheers!
Yeah, the punchline of the findings is that the average pilot will not be able to tell the difference if they bought any other 2207 motor in 1980kv. Then, quite simply, it's disappointing that "then science guy" didn't want to publish the actual stator size, or give more data to support his test results.
@@jayaneyon9316 oh tell me, my wise and sweet, is battery abscence necessary for correct stator volume measurement? Fanboy, lol. For example, his AOS5 frame is shit (bought it, tried it). But salty is Darren here, not me
I didnt know all the stuff behind the motors just bought 1 for a wing because it was nice looking and i wanted a bit more kv. I can tell you its a little heavier than 2207 i had on it and it didnt burn up running 70-100% throttle all day with a 6x5 apc prop on 6s which will kill an emax eco motor in 1 pack. Rcinpower makes excellent motors. Reading the comments the whole 2207 class thing kinda sucks they do that with plane motors some call out the stator and some the can size.
My thoughts exactly on your comment about 2308 and rosser. What i will say though is now i hope companies start making 2308s . They are perfect for my 6 inch freestyle builds. 2308 dissapeared. diatone stopped making them. Years ago. So happy they are gonna come back to the market
The Velox 3 (2207) isn't 2207 either. It is 22,5 x 7,5 mm according to a review from Gal Kremer. I have purchased one of that and an F60 Pro Mk. 5 even to "feel" them. They are very nice both, just touching the bell, feeling the bearing and the cogging does not really justify the F60 Pro 5 being nearly double the price. And just before I forget to mention. The F60 Pro 5 isn't 2207 either. It is closer to 22 x 7,8 mm in size.
this is about integrity, i feel sorry for Chris as he may not realize this discrepancies of the size to the label in the beginning ( im trying to be optimistic) but all is said and done.. now what is more interesting to do is for you to measure other famous 2207 motor with caliper and show that in average this industry is maintaining their integrity or just selling bollocks. just my 2 cent. great work!
I popped a set of SuperNovas on my 5 inch Alien 6S build. One motor arced through the frame and the other three got extremely hot within 5s of testing it. I never got a chance to pop on props and take it for a flight. I'll be going back to my previous motors after that experience.
so what is the bench result compared to 2308 motors and does the flight time go up since they are more efficient. ı would like to see a video about these actually
I couldn't tell a difference from my Velox V2 and Blackbird motors. The Blackbirds were twice the price and that was the last time I bought expensive motors. All I buy are Velox V2, Emax Eco ii or Flash King Hobby. All the money I save can go toward air units.
Rather than pointing out the issues, lets be honest here We gotta admit many of us didnt have any visibility in true comparison before him. IMO, him getting involved with products or making videos will make the market grow towards healthier direction.
While I agree, he needs to ensure he is fully transparent with his own products if he's prepared to publish details about competitors. Asking everyone to keep his dimensions secret is not acceptable.
I also think its important to say that rcinpower's test numbers are aupwr different and say that they're much less efficient than other motors but much more powerful and thrust stands also dont mimick was happens in the air, especially Chris's.
Thank you for making this content. I 100% agree. For instance on the computer his 3.5 evo is perfect but the stack holes run into another. So at the 25mm hole is the same for middle, then middle into front. So your vtx is 25wide how can you use the middle stack unless you choose 20x20. Why not just say it's 20x20 mounting. even if you wanted to turn the board the standoff is now at that point a problem. Same with the front they run into the middle/ camera plates are same height as the vista. He definitely tried to combine the iflight 2208 and Mr Steele 2307 in my opinion. Although the whole motor scene in a sham. Johnny Fpv and lumenier have been doing it for years. His frame was 03 ready before it was released, the cnc front plates he chose were vitsa/air unit ready.They have unique motor sizes and kv.( Now everyone wants a 4s motor on a 6s quad.) Here me out . ... Everything that was over 2100kv or over in the 2306 or 2207 class was 6s( last year!.) Now it's the standard to be in this range. Also a year ago ... I was told it will spin the motor to fast and be inefficient because it would cause over oscillations 6s on 4s in general ... otherwise the motor will get hot "It's probably because the C rating before wasn't able to achieve the whole power band" or there working together. I've honestly been running for 6S motors on 4S for 2 years now because my iflight came unmarked all black... but the ripped and I continued using 6s. thus my question. So it's been a let's make everything lighter market. Because power is torque isn't it? It depends. At this point it comes down to weight. Because the same high end power isn't going to have torque for a dive on 800grams. everything have been pushed to become lighter so you don't need a lower KV with as much torque to pull out of dives. This is all skeptical . I've tried so many motors it's not even funny. not bench test! How does a bench test show thrust with weight differential. For him to say that Mr steele are not one of best is kind of absurd. So for chirs to charge $3 more for a motor with the least amount of material in any other motor besides flux that's eventually disapates. He clearly knows he has the right amount of followers to send us all to the bank. his cnc madness clan alone. Mr steele motors aren't all the unique either. Johnny Fpv 5. Years ago 2306.8 in (1750 6s )2250( 5s 2550) (4s 2550) is apparently enough to change battery. I myself was giving the knew fad 2000kv room of margine until I read those specs. 28 grams also. So it seems ust call a 4s motor a 6s because no one is buying 4s motors any longer. Mr Steele said so in his interview so his v5 isn't 4s.. also So I can add the Stout bell to a silk stator and gives you 10%? Fair but is it the magnet or the kv? 10% is enough to go from 4s to 6s or magnets rather. So every 6s motor that uses nsb is 4s? it's just a better bearing. Go from nsb #2 bearing and or magnet made in the world to nsk #1 performing 10% better makes since. Also botgrinders 2207 have higher ohms peak current and everything else at 2207 over Chris motor or basically every motor in that class except. Axis flying making a 2406 making 1000 grams of thrust is technically also a 6in motor but it's hot man.
Ive beaten my tmotor slatts to death.. they still fly great and my gyro is still clean. I fly 4s and have zero need for the bleeding edge of performance.
I get the same vibe from his frame designs. Sure the data shows his products being superior, but in actuality BF has come so far and has such a wide array of filters and tuning options these days. I think nearly any frame and motors on the market can be built to fly good assuming you have a good FC with a proven gyro.
@@420247paul well rpm filtering covers the whole frequency range so you can use less gyro filtering. Plus some of the dynamic filtering does essentially the same thing if you’re not running rpm filtering.
The thinner any magnet is, the lower on it's operating curve it is working at, and the faster it will LOSE both short term and permanent magnetic strength in the presence of both externally applied magnetic fields (the motor windings themselves), and higher temperatures. This is a primary reason why manufacturers keep magnets at least reasonable thick. The magnets you showed here early on are WAY too thin.. The thinner they are, the less flux you get from them as well. The recommended temperature range stated be manufacturers ASSUME a certain minimal "Operating Point" of the magnetic material, and these magnets are WELL BELOW any normal operating point. Also, there is a critical mistake made in this video when discussing a motor's "KV" rating (RPM per volt). It is stated that the higher the KV of the motor, the more powerful it is. No. Just as when discussing car engines, you need to talk about both RPM an Torque at the same time. Electric Motor manufacturers SHOULD provide you with a power curve- showing just what the motor can do in both RPM and torque. Other IMPORTANT factors are 1) True Electrical Power IN to Mechanical power OUT vs. RPM (this is a non-trivial subject). 2) Performance over time at Maximum Power- how does the power fade over a handful of minutes or hours? Anyhow, most of you have no access to laboratory grade measuring equipment, so just do THIS instead- easy way to compare motors- always documenting RPM, Current Draw (AMPS), and battery voltage....A) With a fresh battery, see what RPM's you get at full throttle. B) Pick a speed you like to fly at, and do your best to fly a big oval at that speed over an entire battery cycle. C) As soon as your drone lands be ready with another FULLY charged battery and see what RPM's you get from the now warm motor. D) Study your data after the run, and do your best to get AVERAGE RPM, and CURRENT DRAW that allowed you to fly at that speed you like to fly at. E) Repeat for any/every motor you want to study. Lastly, after you have let the motors cool down again, see if you still get the same RPM with a new battery they gave you before. Again, there are two types of Temp Losses in Magnetics- temporary ones, that bounce back when the magnet cools, and permanent ones.. you don't get that back. If the flying part of this seems absurd, that do you best to recreate it "on the bench"- you can still get some useful data that way.....pick an RPM for the motors to run at , and keep them at that RPM.
Idk about artificial considering I get 140mph and 5mins on hard freestyle with the cheapest battery around 1300mah rchacker. Then long-range flights 9mins on the same battery 12mins on 2600mah. Maybe try a different prop 5150 or a lighter frame AOS UL5 if your not getting these results
What components do you have? I don't believe you are getting that speed with 5 minutes freestyle. My 5" 6s can go 100 and gets 3 minutes of I push it hard
The downvotes really show how few people truly understand how the scientific method works. Sad part is, even in professional research. many scientists fall into the exact same biases you outline (sometimes willingly because money/subsidies grease the statistics). This is a big reason why there are a lot of failed startups that plan a product purely on the findings of their research team, put out a failed product because they never linked the experimental design to the actual end user application before the product launch.
ChrisRosser said somewhere- I agree. Unfortunately, one person cannot decide how motors are named and sold in the hobby. Pilots are searching for 2207 motors for 5" quads so this motor has to be called a 2207 to show it's for the same purpose. I wish this weren't the case!
Well, look at what FPVCycle did with their naming conventions. Chris could have done something similar - he could have used this platform to share why as 2308 is the better size for 5” Freestyle, but that would mean everyone would make 2308 and his competitive advantage is gone.
Another thing to consider is that the materials to make FPV motors are damaging to the environment, particularly the magnets. If we accept this premise, then it is better to buy better quality motors than lots of crap motors, and it is better to buy motors with smaller magnets than big ones, especially if they perform better. Chris never said they are a 2207 motor, and stator size is not the only thing that makes this motor better.
The Aussie FPV store rising sun FPV in Townsville sells 2308s 1900kv called “Helios” for $25 AUD each. They weigh 36 grams and have a max thrust of 1959 grams. AOS Super Nover $55 AUD weighs 32 grams and has 1980 grams of thrust. The second best 2207 Chris ever tested is the RCnPower MajorWasp Green $35 AUD weighing 30grams with 1800 grams of thrust. This shows that the AOS Super Novers are expensive and perform the best. I couldn’t find a “premium” priced 2307 easily. Personally I’d rather the cheaper 2307’s and get twice as many
As I said I don’t doubt for a minute that they have the best performance on the bench - what I seriously doubt is that any pilot will genuinely be able to tell if they had a comparable motor in stator size and kv, like the Helios. anyone who thinks they can doesn’t understand that it’s just cognitive bias telling them that because it’s the better motor they feel it performs better.
@@DarrenAllattI think the difference between the supernova motors and regular 2308 should feel quite obvious because iirc chris rosser said in a jb video that they weigh 34.5g (with wire), but the rising sun Helios motors weigh 36.3g and seem to be 2207.5, not 2308. So I assume they would be even heavier if they were 2308. And I can say from experience that a difference of 2 or 3 grams from the ends of the arms can make a huge difference to flight performance as long as you don't go down in stator volume to get it
I must agree with you, It's bs calling one motor "the best" since different build suits different motor sizes and kvs... Also there is no need to call the motor it's size, so why name them 2207 supernova, when you can call them just 5" supernova, as for instance kabab fpv do. Besides that, I'm also sceptical about the whole testing being done on single prop... it's not impossible to find even better performing motor/prop/auw combo out there imo
You couldn’t get a battery for your calipers? C’mon.., “Unsubscribe”’ … Just kidding! Nice video as always man! I’m sure I’d never feel the difference. (Edit: However an interesting test might be to find a similar motor & do some steady throttle range/flight time tests to see if improved efficiency could be demonstrated.)
Those batteries do not have the same Watt Hour Capacity. The 4S has 26.1 Watt Hours, the 6S has 33.93 Watt Hours. The 6S has a higher capacity, so you can expect more flight time.
@@harleyqueen1337 I’m going to answer this in two parts here, because you are missing something hugely important in your line of questioning. First, 2500kv motors are not designed t o run on 6S, they’re designed for 4S. If you were to run them on 6S, they would draw too much current, causing your ESC to blow and most likely catch fire. Your motors would also get too hot from the current overload and blow as well, probably also catching fire. Now that’s the pragmatic answer to your question- here is the second part, which is the important thing you are missing. “Speed” means absolutely nothing in racing if you can’t control your drone. The best racers can use 6S motors with 3S batteries (so they produce half the power) and be quicker around a race track than most pilots. The point is, speed in racing comes from skill and being able to control your quad to get it around the track as fast as possible. There is no point doing 200km/h with a drone, if to get it around a track you need an extra 30 meters for every turn to control the drone at that speed, where going 100km/h but being really tight around corners will get you around a track 4x faster.
Well said man this chris rosser geezer just loves spreadsheets us senders know the real difference and they ate too expensive if ur bando bashin like us well said bro keep up the good work bro ❤❤❤
They're not that bad a price, similar in pricing to T-Motor F90 and Pacer. I've got a set of RCInPower GTS V4 which were over £20 a motor. Only because they're in pink and was doing a blue and pink build 😂😅
@@DarrenAllatt Recommending and selling some "new concepts" but expensive products in order to make money is like doing things when you don't even have the money to have a meal. It's quite unfriendly to beginners, and we jokingly call it "They need money to eat"😂
I feel like you need to prove that the performance gained by "mis-sizing" the motor in theory is equal or at least very close to the performance gained by Chris's design in order to really stand on this hill about incorrect motor sizing. I never once assumed that the measurements for any motor were exactly accurate down to a tenth to begin with honestly; seems people have commented other motors that aren't their exact labeled size either. I'm not interested in making a hundred different motor sizes for each tenth mm and i doubt anyone else is either. The hush hush thing is a bit weird granted, especially given the internet is immediately going to not do that. But I truthfully couldn't give a shit, as long as the motors perform well, holds up well, and don't cost a fortune who cares? I don't get what all the fuss is about.
The Stator size is 22.6x7.5mm when he made statments about the wasp motor that was my initial guess and 7.5 hight was a given. That statement of 20,000 designs he tested and compared against is complete bollocks, there were already two of the same stator sizes on the market that he went with well before he "came" up and went with it. will not out anyone, but its utter horse shite. hes got some good idea's that others have had for years including myself to save wight that just don't have the funds or the platform to have motors made with similar design ideas with the hollowed out stator laminations and mounts. something I've thought about personally since I got into the hobby 8 years ago to save wight. The thicker/more iron content in the flux ring was a good idea IMO. anytime you have more iron the better a magnet/magnetic field can stick/resist that force. The Stator size is 22.6x7.5mm, when he made the statments about the wasp motor that was my initial guess and 7.5 hight was a given. I've got a set coming to try and I'm sure they will be great motors.
I'd rather spend $15-20ausd on a motor that has 20sec less run time and 3% less power. You learn to be a better pilot by 1. Stick time . 2. Pushing the limits and crashing and breaking .
Sooo no info on the motors. Did you look at your flight times improving? Run your throttle % on osd and see where your hover % is with your current motors and these. Any gps and testing top speeds of each........ show some data they are not much better
any of those tests wouldn't actually be able to determine accurately their performance and then I'd be criticised for unscientific test results. The point is, the average pilot wouldn't be able to tell if running any other 2207 in 1980kv.
@DarrenAllatt are premium motors for average pilots? I dont think so, they are premium because they do something different or claim to. Why fly a few batteries time it thrn swap motors do roughly the same flights and see. If there is zero difference then you could show it. He is taking 10-20% better in power and flight time over mid grade motors. It should be easy to do flight time and top speed test to give actual information. Wondering if no one should listen to him about tuning because he gets paid for that too....
The problem is, “average pilots” constantly ask “what’s the best ..[insert here]” so when you have someone who states that science and imperial evidence says these are the best motors, average pilots will buy them because they think they will become better for having “the best thing”. The problem with doing un-scientific tests where it’s back to back user experience, and I have run them in the past with things like DJI vs HD-Zero - everyone gets on your case about how all the variables change the results and then the complaints are that your tests aren’t reliable. So really, it’s pick the sword to fall on: a) I either do unscientific user testing that can’t be legitimately verified as accurate and then cop a tonne of shit for that, especially when there is actual & robust bench testing available b) Give me own user experience and thoughts based upon my “career” or experience as FPV TH-camr for a few years, combined with as to what is realistic in the real world while to try to answer the actual questions that people want to know - without trying to use unscientific results to compare to scientific results. Either way - you are screwed I’d rather pick the one which I think helps people in the long run. I also have an issue with everyone constantly asking “what’s the best …” when really what’s best is what’s right for you and everyone is different
@DarrenAllatt if someone asks what the best you should reply with best for what? Saying well i dont notice much so chris must be making up his claims so dont waste your time paying the same price as other premium motors if you are in the market for premium motors. I guess you are picking the way of hey im not going to give you any info other than i dont notice a different, did zero speed tests or flight time tests, the two things the motors should be better at because people might say im wrong. I dont fly any of his stuff just would like to hear that the motors make no difference with actual real world tests from pilots vs saying nope dont notice it. when tracer and other faster control links came out most say they notice no difference unless they did track tests or some kind of direct comparison then realized there was a benefit. This 10‐20% im sure is in that same way, only noticeable when directly comparing. I could be wrong but without pilots doing directly back to back flights not sure anyone will know.
and that's what I do - when someone asks "whats the best..." it's always qualified before I give an answer or, if I am giving a "this is best ..." it's qualified as to who it's best for. and no, I didnt say Chris is making up claims - I said I have no doubt that his bench testing is 100% accurate. again, If we want to do speed tests and flight time, they need to be done scientifically and independently. again, back to back tests are still not reliable because of cognitive bias - you know which one is which so you will say you feel Chris's one is more powerful. Bardwell and Stingerswam did a video with a blind test of Radio Packet Rates and found that neither of them could accurately tell the difference.
Don't forget about propeller tip speed. The tip speed for 5" props on these motors at 21v with 100% throttle (same way the manufacturer tested) ends up way past the 450mph efficiency ceiling that Rosser even calls out in one of his older videos. You'd need somewhere around a 70% throttle limiter to avoid going over 450...
@@skychaser5591 I guess you get better efficiency out of the motor that way, but even at 70% throttle, they are very amp-hungry compared to something like the Wasp Majors.
@@danielwood3861 If I remember correctly he applied the 70% throttle limit because he never needed more than 70% anyways and wanted more resolution. btw: I fully agree with Darren in the comment, why not call it what it is: say a 2308. Chris mentioned in his video it wasn't really a 2207 though, but still many people will miss that and think they buy a 'superb' 2207....
@@skychaser5591 now I wonder, if you limit an average 2308 motor to 70% throttle, would you get similar performance as an average 2207 with the same props?
Chris also said that most of the other motor manufacturers are for instance saying there motor is 1700 kv and after testing them they are not 1700 kv as advertised. He says his motor is the kv that is advertised. That in itself will have a big variance on comparing one motor against his motor. For me I would like to try these new motors and turn down the power a lil because I like 1750 kv power and see how long they will last. They look like they have a good design for long life. Not just power.
What’s a real test? Chris already did the bench testing, and has the data Did you not see where I told you exactly what you were getting from the video
@@DarrenAllatt A real test would be for example to put this motors on, fly arround / to a full on hover test, meassure flight time and do the same with one of the other motors. compare it and check if his bench testing gives you real world benefits too. If it is stronger and faster at changing rotation speed, that has to be feelable / visible / meassurable. So if that is true it MUST have feelable / meassurable effects. but for that it might me necessary to reduce filters in the FC. I saw it, but for my feeling it is overall negative based on price and size, not nuanced and dont takes into account that for some situations/flyers the pricyer motors might be worth it. I mean that it is more pricy you already see when you want to buy them, that the size is a bit different you get from him already. So there is no real information benefit dont you think? one other thing bigger stators normaly come with rotation speed change penalty, so if you now have a motor with a bigger stator that has not only NO penalty but is in fact faster, thats a benefit i would think? That does not change the price, and maybe its not the best idea to call it 2207. BUT if its in the weight class of a 2207 AND rotational change of the 2207 or even better, then i dont realy see the problem. I then would call it a 2207 class motor. But it would be realy interesting to compare it in a real world szenario againt 2207 AND 2308 motors. And we dont have to discuss that a bad pilot dont get better by changing the motors.
@@iwh7 what was this video about? Me trying the motors, What were the three things I said I would cover in the video? 1. what makes them different to other motors, 2. if the average fpv pilot can actually tell if they’re better, 3. whether are they really worth $29 each These were said at the very start of the video so you should not have been under the impression that you’re going to get all of those things that you’re asking for in a “real test” All of the things you’re asking for were completely outside of the scope of what I was trying to cover in 8 minutes. If you want that much detail, go and watch MadsTech Hhu will give you a 30 minute video going into all of that detail about the motors I’m not here to go that much in depth into things because quite frankly, my typical audience wants to know those 3 things.
Chris Ross has tested way over 50 motors he has tested 2000 different motors to test to come up with this motor just wanted to correct you on that point
Well your “correction” is incorrect.. he tested 50 physical motors. The 2000 you are referring to is the digital twin iterations he ran the simulations on to be able come to his final design. If you are going to correct me, get your facts right first.
I've liked a few of your videos in the past but this was a complete waste of time! No useful data about your experience of this motor ... just some cognitive bias theory that you've learned, a dash of self-promotion and a big chip on your shoulder by the sound of it. Agreed, the best motor isn't going to make me half as good a pilot as yourself but give me Chris' logical approach to engineering analysis any day of the week.
The simple answer is, the average pilot will not be able to tell the difference if they bought any other 2207 motor in 1980kv. Then, quite simply, it's disappointing that "then science guy" didn't want to publish the actual stator size, or give more data to support his test results. I have no doubt they perform as well as they do on the bench in a perfect world comparison, but its not something the average pilot will notice.
@@DarrenAllatt You keep emphasising that the average pilot won't notice any difference (and there's probably some merit in that, particularly for folks with poorly tuned quads) but why are you doing it in relation to Chris Rosser's new motor in particular? You could do this to any new motor from any manufacturer who's promoting their new shiz with secret sauce and other marketing hype. I just don't get your angle in this video. As a consumer I always want to see bench tests (eg. Engineer X) and/or some comparative testing of motors for a specific purpose (eg. 5", 6S shootout from Chris Rosser) before making a purchase. Anything objective from a credible, independent source that helps me get the best bang for the $/£ is good news .... as opposed to manufacturers' hyperbole or paid promos from social media shills. Regarding the secret motor size, I'm sure that Chris his his own reasons (although I agree that it does seem strange) but as long as the weight & bench results are in the same ball-park as the other tested motors (or better) then I won't get bent out of shape about the odd 0.5mm difference ... and your average pilot probably wouldn't notice the difference either ;) Regarding Chris's motor ... it wont be on my radar until it's back in stock in the UK and the same prices as a Xing2 2207 (sub £20) :)
I could do this for any new motor, however they don’t claim “their motor is the best according to science” and then fail to publish the actual details that would back up their claim, they don’t ask to keep those certain details secret either - they don’t use products sent to them for free and for marketing purposes to develop your own competing product from.
@@DarrenAllatt Thanks. I think I get your angle now. You have a problem with the way Mr Rosser does business. Personally I pay little attention to marketing campaigns mentioning 'best according to tests/science/surveys' instead of getting wound up about it. He's not forcing us to buy his motors and most of us are discerning enough to do the research up front. Personally I would have contacted Chris directly instead of airing your grievances in public. Have a good day 👍
"20% of effort give you 80% of result". The very best performing stuff (whether it motors or any other thing) is never gonna have best the price/performance ratio because to refine shit you have to do a lot more than to juat create shit. There are niches for both good value product and best performance product, and its kinda sad that you just cant grasp the concept of it.
Just looking at those calipers I think the sticker is off... 😂 So much more error in your measurement than is acceptable to start fussing about somthing being closer to 1 mm larger than 1 mm smaller... What a joke....
@@DarrenAllatt 1st he said exactly THAT. 2nd its a 2207 weight motor with a slightly bigger size, but without realy meassuring it I would assume that the stator VOLUME is more on the 2207 side. And i mean Volume and not just outside meassurements. But Again NO Test, no Meassurements, a lot of rambling.
@@DarrenAllatt I wasn’t just his 2207 class motor and england isnt the motherland they will think your a nazi,s and that you support the war they have started with russia!
There are somethings, which I didn't get into in this video.
My measurements indicate they're closer to a 2308 than a 2207.
But Chris already told us they're not 2207 but "2207 Class".
Chris states they are quantifiably better performing in terms of thrust, torque and efficiency than the average of the 2207 motors he's tested. But 2308 is a bigger stator and produces more power than a 2207. Therefore, of course they will be higher performing, that's how engineering works.
Before I get into this, you may think, well isn't Chris one of the "Good Guys". Chris was contributor in the community who was recovering some of the cost by his frame and some products. We could all get behind and support that.
However, Chris has/is moved/moving away from "I'm just helping out the community and being reimbursed for the efforts" to a full on commercial business in FPV. So he's due the same scrutiny that we'd give any other company.
Here are the several issues with these motors:
1. Science & engineering is supposed to be able to discern truth and define fact. Having a motors that are closer to 2308, but calling them "2207" and using the term "2207 class" is disingenuous.
2. Chris has built his authority in FPV based upon applying an engineering approach to define truth and fact from his testing. This profile was based upon a companies sending him their motors to test for marketing purposes (and yes he's bought some himself). To then use the motors provided by companies to create a competing product doesn't exactly exemplify integrity.
If the companies who produced the motors were also in the UK or even in the USA, it sounds like Chris would have a lawsuit on his hands.
3. Chris states his motors perform quantifiably better than the average 2207 motor. I don't have any issues with taking the average as a benchmark for marketing reasons, that's acceptable. But, with the stators being closer to a 2308, Chris calling them a 2207, then comparing them to 2207 motors doesn't show whether they genuinely perform better because of the engineering he's put into them, or if it's simply because you have more stator volume on a 2308 than a 2207.
4. Why didn't he just call them 2308's and use his platform and science to say that the best motor size for 5" Freestyle is a 2308? I actually wish he did, even if they are a few points of a mm smaller than 2308, representing them in their true size would have been better.
But calling them 2308's and saying this is why its the right size, opens him up to competition. You can't charge $29 for a motor that's performance is derived from its stator size and its marginal improvements over the competition are because of its engineering.
Everyone would make 2308's and Chris's competitive advantage is suddenly gone.
As I said in my video my measurements shouldn't be taken as 100% accurate, but if you give the manufacturer the courtesy of not having to be accurate, and allowing them to be misleading in their product - well, same applies here.
Tldr: science guy said science so best! Aka: let’s take the bison > wasp > fpvcycle stator iterations, swap the flux ring to magnet ratio, dip it in blue paint and raise the price by 20%, call it best coz science and send it 💸💸💸💩🥪
@@ciaofpv5520 yes!
@@ciaofpv5520
My biggest issue, is saying that he is the “best” source of science, and the rest of us, the actual professionals, don’t know what we are doing… we have people that now specialize in FPV motors, for years, that also have worked/work on the most incredible hypercar and off-world electric motors.
With modelling, simulation and testing technology that is never going to be available to the public. AND, most importantly, a large team of professional FPV pilots that drive the development more than the aforementioned technologies. We are building these for people to have fun after all.
I’m all for an underdog story… but the poor data set and derived simulations are more marketing than science, unfortunately.
Thank you for taking the time for this
The weight is about the same as a 2207 motor so in my opinion it's fair to compare them, but the naming is wrong
They are 22.5 x 07.5 it seems.
So 10% more volume but the same weight (approximate) as 2207 I guess. Bell is light. So less durable (?) and becomes a finite analysis on strength comparison. That would need to be done.
absolutely Mark, and I am not that technically include like yourself or Ian - so not the best person to do that
I don't understand your point...
All he has said is:
By using engineering, better quality materials, and better design, I have produced a new motor. By using "the scientific method," I've obtained data that shows that this motor is indeed superior to the batch i tested. This is the data i gathered, read it and draw your own conclusion.
Why would someone be biased by reading and observing a scientific proven experiment? That's not how bias works. Otherwise, we would all be biased in believing that air contains oxygen...
Biased is having a prejudice which could be induce for exhample by common beliefs, hear say or opinions..
The whole point of science and to use the scientific method is to eliminate bias from the equation and let the data speak.
You are right, a better motor won't makeyou a better pilot as me driving an f1 car won't make me winning a grand Prix.
Better equipment will directly affect personal performances if used appropriately to one own skill level.
There are several cognitive bias which prejudice us - and bias and prejudice isn’t about another person.
Confirmation Bias: People tend to favor information that confirms their beliefs - you have “data” that says they’re better therefore you think you feel their better performance when you don’t.
Authority Bias: People tend to believe or obey authority figures without questioning them. - because there is “scientific data” to prove they are better performing against a non-comparable example, it gives these motors the authority they are actually better, when a premium T-Motor that’s 2308 1980kv would perform similarly on the bench and in the real world experience.
Hall Effect. You place importance on the scientific data as opposed to how they actually perform in the real world against a realistically comparable example - therefore you think they’re always better.
But the problem is, Chris is calling them a 2207 and saying this data proves they perform better than other 2207’s
But they’re not 2207’s the stator size is 2308, which is 20% larger in volume than a 2207 - so of course the data will prove they perform better, they’re a bigger motor.
Say they’re a 2308, but they’re the same weight as a 2207 so you get all the benefit of the additional stator volume of a 2308 without the weight penalty
It’s not that hard.
@@DarrenAllatt To be fair Chris has stated publicly that he calls them 2207 as to not alienate pilots that are accustomed to seeing that size. It is just the size his motors are similar to.
For myself I can't imagine putting $30 in a motor and would rather put the money somewhere else in the quad. Equipment is really good all around these days, including motors. Besides, motors are a consumable much like batteries.
Thanks Darren! I'm not too skeptical I just have so many other fpv motors I really don't need any more atm. Thanks for the video bro!
You are welcome
One sure way to test is to see what hover times/flight times you get of those vs other best in class motors.
You should be get more minutes of flight time with these as they are more efficient.
In terms of feeling they probably won't feel much different than other motors with similar measurements and KV.
Thank you for wasting 7.5 minutes of my time, without telling us ANYTHING about your findings from TRYING these motors. But, good job sharing with us your biases, your wonderful drone build tutorials, and your deep technical knowledge. If more KV equals more power, and larger stator size (impressed by your skill of calculating the complex shape volume using only 2 measurements by out-of-battery electronic caliper, BTW!) means better performance, I'm sure we'd all be thrilled with your design of a 99x9mm 9999kv 5-inch motor (correctly named, of course). Dont forget the "solid stator", please. While waiting for that engineering masterpiece, i'll ask TH-cam to never suggest your videos again, cheers!
Yeah, the punchline of the findings is that the average pilot will not be able to tell the difference if they bought any other 2207 motor in 1980kv. Then, quite simply, it's disappointing that "then science guy" didn't want to publish the actual stator size, or give more data to support his test results.
I am surprised you watched all 7:50 when I said everything I was going to cover in the first 30 seconds.
You sound like a salty chris rosser fan lmao. You don't know how fpv motor stators are measured and you didn't get the point of the video at all.
@@jayaneyon9316 oh tell me, my wise and sweet, is battery abscence necessary for correct stator volume measurement? Fanboy, lol. For example, his AOS5 frame is shit (bought it, tried it). But salty is Darren here, not me
@@YaroDrone you actually bought that ugly ass frame, i never would 😂stfu. Stator volume is measured that way, it just is, get over it.
I didnt know all the stuff behind the motors just bought 1 for a wing because it was nice looking and i wanted a bit more kv. I can tell you its a little heavier than 2207 i had on it and it didnt burn up running 70-100% throttle all day with a 6x5 apc prop on 6s which will kill an emax eco motor in 1 pack. Rcinpower makes excellent motors. Reading the comments the whole 2207 class thing kinda sucks they do that with plane motors some call out the stator and some the can size.
My thoughts exactly on your comment about 2308 and rosser. What i will say though is now i hope companies start making 2308s . They are perfect for my 6 inch freestyle builds. 2308 dissapeared. diatone stopped making them. Years ago. So happy they are gonna come back to the market
The Velox 3 (2207) isn't 2207 either. It is 22,5 x 7,5 mm according to a review from Gal Kremer. I have purchased one of that and an F60 Pro Mk. 5 even to "feel" them. They are very nice both, just touching the bell, feeling the bearing and the cogging does not really justify the F60 Pro 5 being nearly double the price.
And just before I forget to mention. The F60 Pro 5 isn't 2207 either. It is closer to 22 x 7,8 mm in size.
Again, the point is - Chris has the opportunity to stick to science & engineering instead of playing into the marketing games of FPV companies.
this is about integrity, i feel sorry for Chris as he may not realize this discrepancies of the size to the label in the beginning ( im trying to be optimistic) but all is said and done.. now what is more interesting to do is for you to measure other famous 2207 motor with caliper and show that in average this industry is maintaining their integrity or just selling bollocks. just my 2 cent. great work!
I popped a set of SuperNovas on my 5 inch Alien 6S build. One motor arced through the frame and the other three got extremely hot within 5s of testing it.
I never got a chance to pop on props and take it for a flight.
I'll be going back to my previous motors after that experience.
Very interesting insight !!! thank you
0:08 I love how you already framed the youtube playbutton that you will eventually get. That's some optimism ;)
Thanks RCShim, appreciate it.
so what is the bench result compared to 2308 motors and does the flight time go up since they are more efficient. ı would like to see a video about these actually
I couldn't tell a difference from my Velox V2 and Blackbird motors. The Blackbirds were twice the price and that was the last time I bought expensive motors. All I buy are Velox V2, Emax Eco ii or Flash King Hobby. All the money I save can go toward air units.
Great point!
Rather than pointing out the issues, lets be honest here
We gotta admit many of us didnt have any visibility in true comparison before him.
IMO, him getting involved with products or making videos will make the market grow towards healthier direction.
While I agree, he needs to ensure he is fully transparent with his own products if he's prepared to publish details about competitors. Asking everyone to keep his dimensions secret is not acceptable.
I also think its important to say that rcinpower's test numbers are aupwr different and say that they're much less efficient than other motors but much more powerful and thrust stands also dont mimick was happens in the air, especially Chris's.
@DarrenAllatt, how does motor sound in comparison with the others?
Normal. They sound like my RCInPower Motors, T-Motor F60's, Axis Flying C246 and really any other premium motor.
Thank you for making this content. I 100% agree. For instance on the computer his 3.5 evo is perfect but the stack holes run into another. So at the 25mm hole is the same for middle, then middle into front. So your vtx is 25wide how can you use the middle stack unless you choose 20x20. Why not just say it's 20x20 mounting. even if you wanted to turn the board the standoff is now at that point a problem. Same with the front they run into the middle/ camera plates are same height as the vista. He definitely tried to combine the iflight 2208 and Mr Steele 2307 in my opinion. Although the whole motor scene in a sham. Johnny Fpv and lumenier have been doing it for years. His frame was 03 ready before it was released, the cnc front plates he chose were vitsa/air unit ready.They have unique motor sizes and kv.( Now everyone wants a 4s motor on a 6s quad.) Here me out . ...
Everything that was over 2100kv or over in the 2306 or 2207 class was 6s( last year!.) Now it's the standard to be in this range. Also a year ago ... I was told it will spin the motor to fast and be inefficient because it would cause over oscillations 6s on 4s in general ... otherwise the motor will get hot "It's probably because the C rating before wasn't able to achieve the whole power band" or there working together. I've honestly been running for 6S motors on 4S for 2 years now because my iflight came unmarked all black... but the ripped and I continued using 6s. thus my question. So it's been a let's make everything lighter market. Because power is torque isn't it? It depends. At this point it comes down to weight. Because the same high end power isn't going to have torque for a dive on 800grams. everything have been pushed to become lighter so you don't need a lower KV with as much torque to pull out of dives. This is all skeptical . I've tried so many motors it's not even funny. not bench test! How does a bench test show thrust with weight differential. For him to say that Mr steele are not one of best is kind of absurd. So for chirs to charge $3 more for a motor with the least amount of material in any other motor besides flux that's eventually disapates. He clearly knows he has the right amount of followers to send us all to the bank. his cnc madness clan alone. Mr steele motors aren't all the unique either. Johnny Fpv 5. Years ago 2306.8 in (1750 6s )2250( 5s 2550) (4s 2550) is apparently enough to change battery. I myself was giving the knew fad 2000kv room of margine until I read those specs. 28 grams also. So it seems ust call a 4s motor a 6s because no one is buying 4s motors any longer. Mr Steele said so in his interview so his v5 isn't 4s.. also So I can add the Stout bell to a silk stator and gives you 10%? Fair but is it the magnet or the kv? 10% is enough to go from 4s to 6s or magnets rather. So every 6s motor that uses nsb is 4s? it's just a better bearing. Go from nsb #2 bearing and or magnet made in the world to nsk #1 performing 10% better makes since. Also botgrinders 2207 have higher ohms peak current and everything else at 2207 over Chris motor or basically every motor in that class except. Axis flying making a 2406 making 1000 grams of thrust is technically also a 6in motor but it's hot man.
Ive beaten my tmotor slatts to death.. they still fly great and my gyro is still clean. I fly 4s and have zero need for the bleeding edge of performance.
yeah T-Motor are solid
I get the same vibe from his frame designs. Sure the data shows his products being superior, but in actuality BF has come so far and has such a wide array of filters and tuning options these days. I think nearly any frame and motors on the market can be built to fly good assuming you have a good FC with a proven gyro.
well shit runs better without filters
@@420247paul well rpm filtering covers the whole frequency range so you can use less gyro filtering. Plus some of the dynamic filtering does essentially the same thing if you’re not running rpm filtering.
We want less filtering.
Maybe its just me but after trying these I still like the Farouk FPV 2505.5 2000kv
The flying here is so light if you said there was a difference I'd doubt you actually noticed.
The thinner any magnet is, the lower on it's operating curve it is working at, and the faster it will LOSE both short term and permanent magnetic strength in the presence of both externally applied magnetic fields (the motor windings themselves), and higher temperatures. This is a primary reason why manufacturers keep magnets at least reasonable thick. The magnets you showed here early on are WAY too thin.. The thinner they are, the less flux you get from them as well. The recommended temperature range stated be manufacturers ASSUME a certain minimal "Operating Point" of the magnetic material, and these magnets are WELL BELOW any normal operating point. Also, there is a critical mistake made in this video when discussing a motor's "KV" rating (RPM per volt). It is stated that the higher the KV of the motor, the more powerful it is. No. Just as when discussing car engines, you need to talk about both RPM an Torque at the same time. Electric Motor manufacturers SHOULD provide you with a power curve- showing just what the motor can do in both RPM and torque. Other IMPORTANT factors are 1) True Electrical Power IN to Mechanical power OUT vs. RPM (this is a non-trivial subject). 2) Performance over time at Maximum Power- how does the power fade over a handful of minutes or hours? Anyhow, most of you have no access to laboratory grade measuring equipment, so just do THIS instead- easy way to compare motors- always documenting RPM, Current Draw (AMPS), and battery voltage....A) With a fresh battery, see what RPM's you get at full throttle. B) Pick a speed you like to fly at, and do your best to fly a big oval at that speed over an entire battery cycle. C) As soon as your drone lands be ready with another FULLY charged battery and see what RPM's you get from the now warm motor. D) Study your data after the run, and do your best to get AVERAGE RPM, and CURRENT DRAW that allowed you to fly at that speed you like to fly at. E) Repeat for any/every motor you want to study. Lastly, after you have let the motors cool down again, see if you still get the same RPM with a new battery they gave you before. Again, there are two types of Temp Losses in Magnetics- temporary ones, that bounce back when the magnet cools, and permanent ones.. you don't get that back. If the flying part of this seems absurd, that do you best to recreate it "on the bench"- you can still get some useful data that way.....pick an RPM for the motors to run at , and keep them at that RPM.
Idk about artificial considering I get 140mph and 5mins on hard freestyle with the cheapest battery around 1300mah rchacker. Then long-range flights 9mins on the same battery 12mins on 2600mah. Maybe try a different prop 5150 or a lighter frame AOS UL5 if your not getting these results
What components do you have? I don't believe you are getting that speed with 5 minutes freestyle. My 5" 6s can go 100 and gets 3 minutes of I push it hard
The downvotes really show how few people truly understand how the scientific method works. Sad part is, even in professional research. many scientists fall into the exact same biases you outline (sometimes willingly because money/subsidies grease the statistics). This is a big reason why there are a lot of failed startups that plan a product purely on the findings of their research team, put out a failed product because they never linked the experimental design to the actual end user application before the product launch.
ChrisRosser said somewhere- I agree. Unfortunately, one person cannot decide how motors are named and sold in the hobby. Pilots are searching for 2207 motors for 5" quads so this motor has to be called a 2207 to show it's for the same purpose.
I wish this weren't the case!
Well, look at what FPVCycle did with their naming conventions. Chris could have done something similar - he could have used this platform to share why as 2308 is the better size for 5” Freestyle, but that would mean everyone would make 2308 and his competitive advantage is gone.
@@DarrenAllatt I understand that Chris said- it wasn’t his decision
@@noramas. that’s BS, it’s Chris’s product. His brand and reputation on the line, so the buck stops with him.
It’s all about feelings :)
Another thing to consider is that the materials to make FPV motors are damaging to the environment, particularly the magnets.
If we accept this premise, then it is better to buy better quality motors than lots of crap motors, and it is better to buy motors with smaller magnets than big ones, especially if they perform better.
Chris never said they are a 2207 motor, and stator size is not the only thing that makes this motor better.
Do you want to go and read his marketing?
Go to his website and tell me what he calls the motors.
The Aussie FPV store rising sun FPV in Townsville sells 2308s 1900kv called “Helios” for $25 AUD each. They weigh 36 grams and have a max thrust of 1959 grams. AOS Super Nover $55 AUD weighs 32 grams and has 1980 grams of thrust. The second best 2207 Chris ever tested is the RCnPower MajorWasp Green $35 AUD weighing 30grams with 1800 grams of thrust. This shows that the AOS Super Novers are expensive and perform the best. I couldn’t find a “premium” priced 2307 easily. Personally I’d rather the cheaper 2307’s and get twice as many
As I said I don’t doubt for a minute that they have the best performance on the bench - what I seriously doubt is that any pilot will genuinely be able to tell if they had a comparable motor in stator size and kv, like the Helios. anyone who thinks they can doesn’t understand that it’s just cognitive bias telling them that because it’s the better motor they feel it performs better.
@@DarrenAllattI think the difference between the supernova motors and regular 2308 should feel quite obvious because iirc chris rosser said in a jb video that they weigh 34.5g (with wire), but the rising sun Helios motors weigh 36.3g and seem to be 2207.5, not 2308. So I assume they would be even heavier if they were 2308.
And I can say from experience that a difference of 2 or 3 grams from the ends of the arms can make a huge difference to flight performance as long as you don't go down in stator volume to get it
I must agree with you, It's bs calling one motor "the best" since different build suits different motor sizes and kvs... Also there is no need to call the motor it's size, so why name them 2207 supernova, when you can call them just 5" supernova, as for instance kabab fpv do.
Besides that, I'm also sceptical about the whole testing being done on single prop... it's not impossible to find even better performing motor/prop/auw combo out there imo
You couldn’t get a battery for your calipers? C’mon.., “Unsubscribe”’
… Just kidding! Nice video as always man! I’m sure I’d never feel the difference.
(Edit: However an interesting test might be to find a similar motor & do some steady throttle range/flight time tests to see if improved efficiency could be demonstrated.)
😂
Well it’s a 2308, so I don’t know how I’d be able to do a legitimate test against a 2207 motor of 1950kv
They Sure Sound Cool!
every motor at 1980kv sounds cool
runtime on a 4s 1500mha? run time on a 6s 1300mhs?
Those batteries do not have the same Watt Hour Capacity.
The 4S has 26.1 Watt Hours, the 6S has 33.93 Watt Hours.
The 6S has a higher capacity, so you can expect more flight time.
+1👍 well written pinned comment
Thank you 👍
Is 2050kv the best for racing?
Why not the 2500kv ?
2500kv is for 4S, while 2050 is pushing the high end of 6S
@@DarrenAllatt So the 2500KV for 6S will not be good to get more speed for racing ?
Thank you for replying sir big fan !!
@@harleyqueen1337 I’m going to answer this in two parts here, because you are missing something hugely important in your line of questioning.
First, 2500kv motors are not designed t o run on 6S, they’re designed for 4S.
If you were to run them on 6S, they would draw too much current, causing your ESC to blow and most likely catch fire.
Your motors would also get too hot from the current overload and blow as well, probably also catching fire.
Now that’s the pragmatic answer to your question- here is the second part, which is the important thing you are missing.
“Speed” means absolutely nothing in racing if you can’t control your drone. The best racers can use 6S motors with 3S batteries (so they produce half the power) and be quicker around a race track than most pilots.
The point is, speed in racing comes from skill and being able to control your quad to get it around the track as fast as possible.
There is no point doing 200km/h with a drone, if to get it around a track you need an extra 30 meters for every turn to control the drone at that speed, where going 100km/h but being really tight around corners will get you around a track 4x faster.
@@DarrenAllatt Thanks a lot sir
Well said man this chris rosser geezer just loves spreadsheets us senders know the real difference and they ate too expensive if ur bando bashin like us well said bro keep up the good work bro ❤❤❤
❤️❤️❤️
They're not that bad a price, similar in pricing to T-Motor F90 and Pacer. I've got a set of RCInPower GTS V4 which were over £20 a motor. Only because they're in pink and was doing a blue and pink build 😂😅
There is a common online saying among young people in China today, 'They need money to eat', which roughly means this situation...
who needs money to eat?
@@DarrenAllatt Rosser
@@DarrenAllatt Recommending and selling some "new concepts" but expensive products in order to make money is like doing things when you don't even have the money to have a meal. It's quite unfriendly to beginners, and we jokingly call it "They need money to eat"😂
That punchout @ 6:07 😮 wow
1980kv will do that
everybody can make fpv motors and fpv piloting and signalisation simply. they will be so important army tools. fpvs will be the bullets.
I feel like you need to prove that the performance gained by "mis-sizing" the motor in theory is equal or at least very close to the performance gained by Chris's design in order to really stand on this hill about incorrect motor sizing. I never once assumed that the measurements for any motor were exactly accurate down to a tenth to begin with honestly; seems people have commented other motors that aren't their exact labeled size either. I'm not interested in making a hundred different motor sizes for each tenth mm and i doubt anyone else is either. The hush hush thing is a bit weird granted, especially given the internet is immediately going to not do that. But I truthfully couldn't give a shit, as long as the motors perform well, holds up well, and don't cost a fortune who cares? I don't get what all the fuss is about.
The Stator size is 22.6x7.5mm when he made statments about the wasp motor that was my initial guess and 7.5 hight was a given. That statement of 20,000 designs he tested and compared against is complete bollocks, there were already two of the same stator sizes on the market that he went with well before he "came" up and went with it. will not out anyone, but its utter horse shite. hes got some good idea's that others have had for years including myself to save wight that just don't have the funds or the platform to have motors made with similar design ideas with the hollowed out stator laminations and mounts. something I've thought about personally since I got into the hobby 8 years ago to save wight. The thicker/more iron content in the flux ring was a good idea IMO. anytime you have more iron the better a magnet/magnetic field can stick/resist that force. The Stator size is 22.6x7.5mm, when he made the statments about the wasp motor that was my initial guess and 7.5 hight was a given. I've got a set coming to try and I'm sure they will be great motors.
Wait soooooo what’s the outcome?????? Oh brother
The outcome = the average pilot wont be able to tell the different between budget 2207 motors of the same KV vs Chris' expensive motors.
I'd rather spend $15-20ausd on a motor that has 20sec less run time and 3% less power.
You learn to be a better pilot by
1. Stick time .
2. Pushing the limits and crashing and breaking .
Absolutely
"Chris Rosser sucks, take classes instead"
"fancy motors mean shit if you don't have a clean build"
Sooo no info on the motors. Did you look at your flight times improving? Run your throttle % on osd and see where your hover % is with your current motors and these. Any gps and testing top speeds of each........ show some data they are not much better
any of those tests wouldn't actually be able to determine accurately their performance and then I'd be criticised for unscientific test results. The point is, the average pilot wouldn't be able to tell if running any other 2207 in 1980kv.
@DarrenAllatt are premium motors for average pilots? I dont think so, they are premium because they do something different or claim to. Why fly a few batteries time it thrn swap motors do roughly the same flights and see. If there is zero difference then you could show it. He is taking 10-20% better in power and flight time over mid grade motors. It should be easy to do flight time and top speed test to give actual information. Wondering if no one should listen to him about tuning because he gets paid for that too....
The problem is, “average pilots” constantly ask “what’s the best ..[insert here]” so when you have someone who states that science and imperial evidence says these are the best motors, average pilots will buy them because they think they will become better for having “the best thing”.
The problem with doing un-scientific tests where it’s back to back user experience, and I have run them in the past with things like DJI vs HD-Zero - everyone gets on your case about how all the variables change the results and then the complaints are that your tests aren’t reliable.
So really, it’s pick the sword to fall on:
a) I either do unscientific user testing that can’t be legitimately verified as accurate and then cop a tonne of shit for that, especially when there is actual & robust bench testing available
b) Give me own user experience and thoughts based upon my “career” or experience as FPV TH-camr for a few years, combined with as to what is realistic in the real world while to try to answer the actual questions that people want to know - without trying to use unscientific results to compare to scientific results.
Either way - you are screwed
I’d rather pick the one which I think helps people in the long run.
I also have an issue with everyone constantly asking “what’s the best …” when really what’s best is what’s right for you and everyone is different
@DarrenAllatt if someone asks what the best you should reply with best for what? Saying well i dont notice much so chris must be making up his claims so dont waste your time paying the same price as other premium motors if you are in the market for premium motors.
I guess you are picking the way of hey im not going to give you any info other than i dont notice a different, did zero speed tests or flight time tests, the two things the motors should be better at because people might say im wrong.
I dont fly any of his stuff just would like to hear that the motors make no difference with actual real world tests from pilots vs saying nope dont notice it.
when tracer and other faster control links came out most say they notice no difference unless they did track tests or some kind of direct comparison then realized there was a benefit. This 10‐20% im sure is in that same way, only noticeable when directly comparing. I could be wrong but without pilots doing directly back to back flights not sure anyone will know.
and that's what I do - when someone asks "whats the best..." it's always qualified before I give an answer
or, if I am giving a "this is best ..." it's qualified as to who it's best for.
and no, I didnt say Chris is making up claims - I said I have no doubt that his bench testing is 100% accurate.
again, If we want to do speed tests and flight time, they need to be done scientifically and independently.
again, back to back tests are still not reliable because of cognitive bias - you know which one is which so you will say you feel Chris's one is more powerful. Bardwell and Stingerswam did a video with a blind test of Radio Packet Rates and found that neither of them could accurately tell the difference.
Don't forget about propeller tip speed. The tip speed for 5" props on these motors at 21v with 100% throttle (same way the manufacturer tested) ends up way past the 450mph efficiency ceiling that Rosser even calls out in one of his older videos. You'd need somewhere around a 70% throttle limiter to avoid going over 450...
yes, that's spot on Daniel!
I saw a video where Chris said he usually set the throttle limit to 70%. (in BF in 'scale' modus)
@@skychaser5591 I guess you get better efficiency out of the motor that way, but even at 70% throttle, they are very amp-hungry compared to something like the Wasp Majors.
@@danielwood3861 If I remember correctly he applied the 70% throttle limit because he never needed more than 70% anyways and wanted more resolution.
btw: I fully agree with Darren in the comment, why not call it what it is: say a 2308.
Chris mentioned in his video it wasn't really a 2207 though, but still many people will miss that and think they buy a 'superb' 2207....
@@skychaser5591 now I wonder, if you limit an average 2308 motor to 70% throttle, would you get similar performance as an average 2207 with the same props?
Lettem eat on 10s
🔥
Chris also said that most of the other motor manufacturers are for instance saying there motor is 1700 kv and after testing them they are not 1700 kv as advertised. He says his motor is the kv that is advertised. That in itself will have a big variance on comparing one motor against his motor. For me I would like to try these new motors and turn down the power a lil because I like 1750 kv power and see how long they will last. They look like they have a good design for long life. Not just power.
453 Littel Glens
I love the motors
The way I can tell a cheap motor is the bearings
I watched the whole thing but there was no measurement m, just some opinions.
Didn't he ask creators not to post measurements?
He asked in his video to keep them a secret but I paid for my motors, so I’ll share whatever I want.
so much rambling with no valuable info
what "valuable info" were you expecting?
@@DarrenAllatt for example a REAL Test not just rambling?
What’s a real test?
Chris already did the bench testing, and has the data
Did you not see where I told you exactly what you were getting from the video
@@DarrenAllatt A real test would be for example to put this motors on, fly arround / to a full on hover test, meassure flight time and do the same with one of the other motors. compare it and check if his bench testing gives you real world benefits too. If it is stronger and faster at changing rotation speed, that has to be feelable / visible / meassurable. So if that is true it MUST have feelable / meassurable effects. but for that it might me necessary to reduce filters in the FC.
I saw it, but for my feeling it is overall negative based on price and size, not nuanced and dont takes into account that for some situations/flyers the pricyer motors might be worth it. I mean that it is more pricy you already see when you want to buy them, that the size is a bit different you get from him already. So there is no real information benefit dont you think?
one other thing bigger stators normaly come with rotation speed change penalty, so if you now have a motor with a bigger stator that has not only NO penalty but is in fact faster, thats a benefit i would think? That does not change the price, and maybe its not the best idea to call it 2207. BUT if its in the weight class of a 2207 AND rotational change of the 2207 or even better, then i dont realy see the problem. I then would call it a 2207 class motor. But it would be realy interesting to compare it in a real world szenario againt 2207 AND 2308 motors. And we dont have to discuss that a bad pilot dont get better by changing the motors.
@@iwh7 what was this video about?
Me trying the motors,
What were the three things I said I would cover in the video?
1. what makes them different to other motors,
2. if the average fpv pilot can actually tell if they’re better,
3. whether are they really worth $29 each
These were said at the very start of the video so you should not have been under the impression that you’re going to get all of those things that you’re asking for in a “real test”
All of the things you’re asking for were completely outside of the scope of what I was trying to cover in 8 minutes.
If you want that much detail, go and watch MadsTech Hhu will give you a 30 minute video going into all of that detail about the motors
I’m not here to go that much in depth into things because quite frankly, my typical audience wants to know those 3 things.
Your criticisms come across as an attempt to take down a competitor.
the science is thin cable ands fragile motors, making people think they're lighter and so more efficient
Don't measure them! 😂
It felt like you said 10,000 words with absolutely zero substance. Wish I could have back the time I wasted watching this ridiculous video
1,076 words was the script.
Why do you keep watching my videos if they are constantly a waste of your time and of zero substance?
Chris Ross has tested way over 50 motors he has tested 2000 different motors to test to come up with this motor just wanted to correct you on that point
Well your “correction” is incorrect.. he tested 50 physical motors. The 2000 you are referring to is the digital twin iterations he ran the simulations on to be able come to his final design.
If you are going to correct me, get your facts right first.
I've liked a few of your videos in the past but this was a complete waste of time! No useful data about your experience of this motor ... just some cognitive bias theory that you've learned, a dash of self-promotion and a big chip on your shoulder by the sound of it. Agreed, the best motor isn't going to make me half as good a pilot as yourself but give me Chris' logical approach to engineering analysis any day of the week.
The simple answer is, the average pilot will not be able to tell the difference if they bought any other 2207 motor in 1980kv. Then, quite simply, it's disappointing that "then science guy" didn't want to publish the actual stator size, or give more data to support his test results. I have no doubt they perform as well as they do on the bench in a perfect world comparison, but its not something the average pilot will notice.
@@DarrenAllatt You keep emphasising that the average pilot won't notice any difference (and there's probably some merit in that, particularly for folks with poorly tuned quads) but why are you doing it in relation to Chris Rosser's new motor in particular? You could do this to any new motor from any manufacturer who's promoting their new shiz with secret sauce and other marketing hype. I just don't get your angle in this video.
As a consumer I always want to see bench tests (eg. Engineer X) and/or some comparative testing of motors for a specific purpose (eg. 5", 6S shootout from Chris Rosser) before making a purchase. Anything objective from a credible, independent source that helps me get the best bang for the $/£ is good news .... as opposed to manufacturers' hyperbole or paid promos from social media shills.
Regarding the secret motor size, I'm sure that Chris his his own reasons (although I agree that it does seem strange) but as long as the weight & bench results are in the same ball-park as the other tested motors (or better) then I won't get bent out of shape about the odd 0.5mm difference ... and your average pilot probably wouldn't notice the difference either ;) Regarding Chris's motor ... it wont be on my radar until it's back in stock in the UK and the same prices as a Xing2 2207 (sub £20) :)
I could do this for any new motor, however they don’t claim “their motor is the best according to science” and then fail to publish the actual details that would back up their claim, they don’t ask to keep those certain details secret either - they don’t use products sent to them for free and for marketing purposes to develop your own competing product from.
@@DarrenAllatt Thanks. I think I get your angle now. You have a problem with the way Mr Rosser does business. Personally I pay little attention to marketing campaigns mentioning 'best according to tests/science/surveys' instead of getting wound up about it. He's not forcing us to buy his motors and most of us are discerning enough to do the research up front. Personally I would have contacted Chris directly instead of airing your grievances in public. Have a good day 👍
Contact him direct, thats not how TH-cam works mate.
So you’re saying he is lying through good crooked teeth?
😂
Waste of time. Time to unsubscribe.
Thought you had already?
"20% of effort give you 80% of result". The very best performing stuff (whether it motors or any other thing) is never gonna have best the price/performance ratio because to refine shit you have to do a lot more than to juat create shit. There are niches for both good value product and best performance product, and its kinda sad that you just cant grasp the concept of it.
Just looking at those calipers I think the sticker is off... 😂 So much more error in your measurement than is acceptable to start fussing about somthing being closer to 1 mm larger than 1 mm smaller... What a joke....
That’s part of the irony, mate
So.. It's basically a 2308 motor that weighs the same as the average 2207 motor..
Yes, why can’t he just say thay
@@DarrenAllatt 1st he said exactly THAT. 2nd its a 2207 weight motor with a slightly bigger size, but without realy meassuring it I would assume that the stator VOLUME is more on the 2207 side. And i mean Volume and not just outside meassurements. But Again NO Test, no Meassurements, a lot of rambling.
You don’t know how volume is calculated do you?
@@DarrenAllatt i think so, but for that you need the inner size too, i dont think the inner part without winding does much for a magnetic field?
Thats the English for you though isn,t it. He’s got a posh accent but really he,s a dodger
😆
although I am Australian
I was talking about Chris rosser and his 2308 motors
@@kerrymillar4981 I know you were but I’m Australian and we have colonial heritage so can’t criticise the mother land 😂
@@DarrenAllatt I wasn’t just his 2207 class motor and england isnt the motherland they will think your a nazi,s and that you support the war they have started with russia!